American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

The Impact Of Course Scheduling On

Student Success In Intermediate Accounting
Linda G. Carrington, Sam Houston State University, USA

ABSTRACT

Cognitive psychology research, as well as educational psychology research, suggests that

learning is enhanced when new subjects are presented in spaced-out sessions rather than
compressed into fewer, longer sessions (the spacing effect). This would suggest that students
should learn better when taking courses that are scheduled over longer time periods (two or three
days per week over a long semester) rather than in an intensive (one day per week) or compressed
(summer session) format. This research investigates whether the spacing effect exists for students
in Intermediate Accounting classes. Specifically, this research examines student performance in
Intermediate Accounting courses offered in four different scheduling formats including one, two,
and three days per week over traditional long semesters, as well as during compressed four-week
summer sessions. A significant association between course schedule and student performance is
found to exist. The effect of student age and gender on this association is also explored. Results
identify one scheduling option which appears to be a particularly poor schedule for Intermediate
Accounting, as well as particular characteristics of students who might be more likely to have
difficulty with this schedule. Results should be of interest to university administrators responsible
for making scheduling decisions, to faculty members teaching under different course schedules,
and to individual students planning their class schedules.

Keywords: Intermediate accounting, course schedule, spacing effect, accounting education, compressed schedule,
intensive schedule, accounting student success

INTRODUCTION

C
ognitive psychology research, as well as educational psychology research, suggests that learning is
enhanced when new subjects are presented in spaced-out sessions rather than compressed into fewer,
longer sessions (the spacing effect). This would suggest that students should learn better when taking
courses that are scheduled for more sessions over longer time periods (two or three days per week over a long
semester) rather than in an intensive (one day per week) or compressed (summer session) format. This paper reports
the results of research into the existence of the spacing effect in Intermediate Accounting. If the spacing effect
exists, one would expect students taking intermediate accounting two or three days per week over a long semester to
perform better than students taking the course one day per week or in the summer. A review of existing literature is
provided first, followed by a description of this study, hypothesis development and testing, and finally interpretation
of the results.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Previous research into the spacing effect provides mixed results. Most of the cognitive psychology
literature supports the existence of the spacing effect. In contrast, much of the educational psychology research
suggests that students taking a class in a compressed or intensive scheduling format will perform as well, and
sometimes even better, than students in traditional scheduling formats. This research does suggest, however, that
there are some courses which are not well suited for compressed or intensive scheduling. These courses include
those which are part of a sequence and therefore require the students to make use of prior knowledge as well as
courses which require more analysis than memorization. Relevant literature can be placed into three categories;
cognitive psychological research on the spacing effect, educational research applying the spacing effect theory to
51
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

higher education in general, and finally, research which addresses the affect of course scheduling on student
performance in accounting, business or similar types of higher education courses.

Cognitive Psychology Research

There is a very large body of psychological research which focuses on a phenomenon known as the spacing
effect. The spacing effect refers to the finding that for a given amount of study time, spaced presentations yield
substantially better learning than do massed presentations (Dempster, 1988, p. 627). In other words, the spacing
effect suggests that reviewing information or practicing new skills periodically, over several weeks or months
enhances retention. Specifically, research has found that when learning sessions and practice periods are spaced out
over a given period of time rather than compressed together in time, long-term memory of the new information/task
is improved. There have been many studies, conducted over many years, which focus on this phenomenon
including Donovan & Radosevich, 1999; Foma, 1983; Gay, 1973; Krug, Davis, & Glover, 1990; Pyle, 1913;
Reynolds & Glaser, 1964, to name a few. These studies consistently support the existence of the spacing effect.

Educational/Psychology Research

The finding of a spacing effect has obvious implications for educators. The spacing effect would suggest
that student learning will be enhanced by introducing/teaching course material in regular increments spread out over
a longer time period. For colleges and universities, this would tend to suggest that student learning/success will be
greater in a course delivered several times a week over many weeks (a traditional long semester) than in a course
which is compressed into a much smaller time period (a few weeks or only one time per week). Accordingly, there
have been many research studies published in the educational psychology literature which specifically address the
effects of intensive and compressed courses in higher education (Brett, 1996; Brookes, 1985; Daniel, 2000, Doyle &
Yantis, 1977; Henebry, 1997, Kanun, Ziebarth & Abrahams, 1963; Kirby-Smith, 1987; Logan & Geltner, 2000;
Scott, 1996; Scott & Conrad, 1991; Seamon, 2004; Studdard, 1975; Wallace, 1972). Surprisingly, many of these
studies produced results which are inconsistent with the spacing effect. Daniel (2000) prepared a meta-analysis
which reviewed prior research comparing the effectiveness of compressed courses with that of traditionally
delivered courses. Based on this extensive literature review, Daniel concluded that compressed courses result in
student achievement/learning that equals and sometimes even surpasses that of traditional, non-compressed courses.
The conclusion applied to both short-term and long-term learning and held true across several disciplines. Scott &
Conrad (1991) also performed an extensive literature review on this topic. They reviewed research on traditionally
delivered courses, summer courses, interim session courses and weekend courses and found that student learning in
compressed courses, again, was equal to or exceeded learning in traditional courses.

In contrast, there have been some studies on class scheduling which do confirm the existence of a spacing
effect (that distributed practice is significantly superior to massed practice). Smith and Rothkopf (1984) found that
presenting lessons in one day was less effective that presenting those same lessons over 4 days. Specifically they
found that the effect of massing the data together in one day was primarily on the short-term retrieval of facts rather
than on long-term learning. Brookes (1985) found that scheduling patterns made no significant difference in
students chances of passing a writing course, although they found that it may have affected their ability to attain a
high grade. Also, noteworthy is Logan and Geltner (2000). Although they concluded that compressed classes
contributed to student success, they also suggested that classes that met more often might be better for student
learning.

Course Scheduling Research - Accounting, Business or Similar Courses

There are some, although noticeably fewer, published studies on this topic which use accounting, business
or other similar courses. Gallo & Odu (2009) examined the relationship between scheduling of classes (3, 2, or 1
day per week) and achievement in college algebra and found that student performance was lower when taking the
course one day per week. This study is particularly relevant to the current one because in college algebra, much like
in accounting, concepts are not presented in isolation of one another but rather are presented in a sequence and
require the student to use prior knowledge. Gallo & Odu suggest that lower student performance in the one time per
week schedule may be due to the fact that the students were forced to rely more on rote learning and did not have
52
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

adequate time to make meaningful connections with prior knowledge. In contrast, because information in the two
and three days per week classes was presented in smaller pieces and sufficiently spaced, students in those classes
may have been better able to make the required connections.

There are only a few studies which focus on the impact of class scheduling on business courses. Henebry
(1997) studied the impact of class schedule on students enrolled in a Corporate Finance course and found higher
pass rates and lower drop rates for classes meeting two or three times per week as compared to classes meeting only
once per week. These findings are consistent with spacing effect theory and with those of Gallo & Odu (2009) noted
above.

In economics, there have been conflicting results. Van Scyoc & Gleason (1993) compared students in a 14
week semester and a 3 week course for microeconomics. Overall, this study concludes that students in the
compressed courses learned and retained at least as much knowledge as students in the traditional length courses.
However, Petrowsky (1996), who also examined microeconomics courses, found diminished academic performance
in those areas of economics that stress comprehension and analysis over mere recall. Petrowsky found that summer
students (compressed) did better than spring students (traditional schedule) on tests from the first half of the course
which involved simple recall of information. However, they performed worse on the tests in second half of course
which involved comprehension, application, and analysis. This research recommended abandoning the two week
format for economics classes. Petrowskys finding that compressed courses were not good for courses which
required more comprehension and analysis is particularly relevant for the current study of Intermediate Accounting
which requires a high level of analysis.

Finally, there has been one study which used accounting courses as its focus. Caskey (1994) examined
results for students enrolled in Accounting I and II (principles of accounting) which were offered under both the
traditional model and an intensive format. The results showed no statistical difference in mean course grades
between formats.

STUDY DESCRIPTION

The current study was conducted at a 4-year public university located in Texas, with an enrollment of
approximately 17,000 students. The College of Business at this university is accredited by the AACSB. This study
examines the performance of all students enrolled in Intermediate Accounting I or Intermediate Accounting II
during the period beginning Fall 2006 and continuing through Summer 2009. This includes three fall, three spring,
and three summer semesters and a total of 2,012 enrollments. Intermediate I and Intermediate II were both included
in the study because of their similarities. Both courses are part of a sequence, both are upper level, both require
more analysis than memorization and both were taught by the same set of professors at this university. Therefore, it
is expected that if a spacing effect exists, it would affect students in both courses in a very similar manner. For this
reason, both courses were included in the study and are referred to in this paper collectively as Intermediate
Accounting. Intermediate enrollment during this period was approximately evenly mixed in terms of gender with
51.33% females and 48.67% males. Ethnicity of the enrollments was as follows: 69.6% white, 12.9% black, 11.6%
Hispanic, and 5.9% other. Most students in this group (74.9%) were of traditional college age (defined as 25 years
old or less) with a sizable minority (25.1%) of nontraditional age students (over age 25). 88.9% completed the
course and received a grade (A,B,C,D,F), while 11.1% did not complete the course (withdrew, resigned or dropped).

During the period of this study, Intermediate Accounting was offered according to a variety of scheduling
options. Traditional schedules include two or three days per week for a 15-week fall or spring semester. The two
days per week schedule met on Mondays and Wednesdays or on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 75 minutes each day
while the three days per week schedule met on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for 50 minutes per day. In
addition, during the fall and spring semesters Intermediate Accounting was offered one day per week for 150
minutes. Finally, Intermediate Accounting was also offered in compressed 4-5 week summer sessions where the
course met every day for two hours.

Two tenured faculty members, each with over fifteen years experience teaching Intermediate Accounting
at this university, taught 80% of these Intermediate classes, with the other 20% of the classes taught by a
53
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

combination of tenured faculty and instructors. The two faculty members that teach most of the Intermediate
courses closely coordinate with each other and with the other faculty who teach the remaining courses, so that the
topics covered, the general approach used and the overall level of difficulty of these classes is very similar. There
was also a common textbook which was used for all classes in this study period. Thus, concern about the effect of
different teachers on student performance is significantly diminished.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING

The first research question in this study can be stated as follows: Does the manner in which Intermediate
Accounting courses are scheduled affect student performance? For purposes of this study, performance is measured
by the final course grade received. Accordingly, the first null hypothesis is:

H1o: Student grades in Intermediate Accounting are not associated with course schedule.

Table 1a shows the number (and percentage) of students receiving each possible grade in each course
schedule. A grade of Q represents students who did not finish the course due to dropping the course, withdrawing
or resigning.

Table 1a: Student Grades and Course Schedule

Course Grade Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Days/Week 3 Days/Week Summer
A 19 142 19 41
7.8% 11.6% 9.1% 12.1%
B 63 273 34 63
25.8% 22.4% 16.3% 18.6%
C 68 341 64 115
27.9% 28.0% 30.6% 33.9%
D 37 211 29 55
15.2% 17.3% 13.9% 16.2%
F 26 140 16 31
10.7% 11.5% 7.7% 9.1%
Q 31 113 47 34
12.7% 9.3% 22.5% 10.0%

To test for the association between course schedule and course grade, a chi square test was used to test for
independence of the variables (lack of association). A chi-square test was used because both variables, course
schedule and course grade, are categorical. A significance level of .05 was used for all hypothesis testing. The result
of the chi-square test on this data is reported in Table 1b.

Chi-Square Test of Table 1b

Significance Level
Value df
(p-value)
Pearson Chi-Square 47.602 15 .000

The resulting chi-square statistic of 47.602 is significant at the .05 level, which indicates that there is a
significant association between course schedule and course grades. Thus, we must reject H1o, the null hypothesis of
no association.

Having established the existence of an association, it is now of interest to know if one of these schedules is
optimal for Intermediate Accounting. The second research question of this study can be stated as follows: Is there a
significant difference in student grades in Intermediate Accounting between the four different course schedules? In
other words, are there significantly more As in a one day per week schedule, or more Ds in the two days per week
schedule, etc. Since there are six possible grades, this results in a set of six additional null hypotheses as follows.
54
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

H2o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of As across the different course schedules.

H3o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of Bs across the different course schedules.

H4o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of Cs across the different course schedules.

H5o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of Ds across the different course schedules.

H6o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of Fs across the different course schedules.

H7o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of Qs across the different course schedules.

To test these hypotheses, a pairwise comparison of the columns in Table 1a must be completed. In other
words, each column is compared, one at a time, to each other column to see if there are statistically significant
differences in the amounts of As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Fs and Qs in each schedule. Again using a chi-square test, the
result of this comparison of column proportions is presented in Table 1c.

Comparisons of Column Proportions(a) of Table 1c

Course Grade Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Days/Week 3 Days/Week Summer
A - - - -
B - - - -
C - - - -
D - - - -
F - - - -
Q 3 days 3 days 1 day, 2 days, Summer 3 days
Results are based on two-sided tests with significance level 0.05.
a Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost subtable using the Bonferroni correction.

In Table 1c, an entry in a cell represents the course schedule that has a significantly different proportion of
that grade than the schedule in that column heading. For example, looking at the one day per week column, the
words 3 days are in the row labeled Q. This means that the one day per week schedule and the three days per
week schedule have rates of Q grades which are significantly different from one another. Similar results are in the
two days per week column and the summer column. In the three days per week column, we see that the proportion
of Qs for the three days per week schedule is significantly different from all three of the other schedules. In fact,
the only grade category (row) for which there is a statistically significant difference between course schedules (an
entry in the table) is for the grade of Q. Due to these findings, we must reject the null hypothesis (H7o) and
conclude that there is a difference in the rate of Q grades between course schedules. However, the lack of other
significant results indicate that there is no significant difference in the amount of As, Bs, Cs, Ds or Fs in the four
schedules. Thus, we cannot reject H2o, H3o, H4o, H5o, or H6o.

These results are based on two-sided tests and therefore do not indicate the direction of the difference in
Qs across schedules. However, by looking back at Table 1a, we can see the direction of the difference.
Specifically, the three days per week schedule has a higher proportion of Qs than any other schedule. It is
noteworthy that while one day per week, two days per week and summer all differ from the three days per week
schedule with respect to the Q rate, they do not differ from one another.

This result is very interesting. Based on prior research and spacing effect theory, one would expect that
students in Intermediate Accounting classes, classes which require analysis, are part of a sequence, and require the
ability to use prior knowledge, would perform better when taking the course more times per week over longer
periods of time. Thus, a course offered three days per week for a long semester should theoretically result in
enhanced student learning and therefore in higher performance. However, the results of this study suggest that
students in the three days per week schedule are dropping the course at significantly higher rates than students
55
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

taking the course under different schedules. When analyzing this result, it is important to note that at the university
being studied, students are permitted to drop a course any time through the last class day of the semester. This
results in many students dropping as late as the last day of class to avoid what would otherwise be an F. Thus, at
this university, many, if not most, Qs are indicative of an anticipated failing grade, which makes the Qs and Fs
very similar.

Successful vs. Not successful

Because of the similarity between the Q and F grades, the next step in this study was to group the Qs and
Fs together and to compare that group of students to the others. To accomplish this, the grade data was redefined
into only two categories, students who were successful and students who were not successful. For purposes of this
study, successful is defined as passing the course (earning a grade of A,B,C or D). Students earning an F or Q
(failed, dropped, resigned or withdrew) are included in the not successful category. After redefining the data in
this manner, the first two research questions of this study (and corresponding hypotheses) were addressed a second
time, to see if results remain consistent with earlier findings. The original hypothesis (H1o), restated in terms of
success is as follows:

H8o: Student success in Intermediate Accounting is not associated with course schedule.

Table 2a presents the percentage of successful and not successful students in each course schedule.

Table 2a: Success Rates and Course Schedules

Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Day/Week 3/Day/Week Summer
Not Successful 23.4% 20.7% 30.1% 19.2%
Successful 76.6% 79.3% 69.9% 80.8%

The results of the chi-square test of data in Table 2 are presented in Table 2b.

Chi-Square Test of Table 2b

Significance Level
Value df
(p-value)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.072 3 .011

The chi-square statistic of 11.072 is significant at a .05 level. This result shows a significant association
between course schedule and student success, consistent with previous results. Thus, the null hypothesis, H8o, is
rejected. The three days per week schedule has the lowest success rate, followed by the one day per week schedule,
then the summer schedule. The two days per week schedule has the highest success rate.

The second research question of this study previously resulted in a set of six hypotheses when individual
grades were used as variables. These can be restated into only two null hypotheses now that student success is being
used as the variable in question.

H9o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of students who are successful across the different
course schedules.

H10o: There are no significant differences in the percentage of students who are not successful across the different
course schedules.

To test these hypotheses, again, a pairwise comparison of the proportions of successful/not successful
students in each schedule type must be made. To do this, a test of column proportions must be performed. Results
are presented in Table 2c.

56
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

Comparisons of Column Proportions of Table 2c

Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Day/Week 3/Day/Week Summer
Not Successful - - 2 days, Summer -
Successful - 3 days - 3 days
Results are based on two-sided tests with significance level 0.05.

These results are very similar to previous results. The not successful percentage is significantly higher in
the three days per week schedule than in the two days per week or summer schedules. Alternatively, the rate of
success is higher in the two days per week schedule and in the summer schedule than in the three days per week
schedule. Consistent with prior results, the success rates for the one day per week, two days per week and summer
schedules are not significantly different from each other. The only new result here is that the difference between the
one day per week schedule and the three days per week schedule is no longer statistically significant, although the
three day schedule continues to have a higher rate of unsuccessful students.

Effect of Student Characteristics

The final issue addressed by this study is whether these results will differ depending on student
characteristics, specifically age and gender. The third research question of this study addresses student age and can
be stated as follows: Is the association between student success and course schedule affected by student age? For
purposes of this study, age is defined as traditional and nontraditional. Traditional college-aged students are those
who are 25 years old or younger. All students over the age of 25 are considered to be of nontraditional age. This
leads to two new null hypotheses.

H11o: There is no association between student success and course schedule for students of traditional age.

H12o: There is no association between student success and course schedule for students of nontraditional age.

Table 3a presents the percentage of successful/not successful students of each age in each course schedule.

Table 3a: Student Age, Success and Course Schedule

Student Age Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Days/Week 3/Days/Week Summer
Traditional Not Successful 29.6% 20.9% 30.1% 19.3%
Successful 70.4% 79.1% 69.9% 80.7%

Nontraditional Not Successful 20.2% 20.2% 30.8% 19.0%

Success 79.8% 79.8% 69.2% 81.0%

Next, the chi-square tests were run on each age group separately. The results are presented in Table 3b.

Chi-Square Tests of Table 3b

Pearson Chi-Square Value df Significance level (p-value)
Traditional 11.276(a) 3 .010
Nontraditional 1.810(b) 3 .613

These results are very interesting. The chi-square statistic is significant for the traditional age students
which indicates that there is an association between student success and course schedule for this group. However,
the lack of significance for the nontraditional age students indicates that there is no association between course
schedule and student success for nontraditional students. Thus, we cannot reject H12o, but we must reject H11o.

57
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

The fourth research question of this study, which addresses student gender, can be stated as follows: Is the
association between student success and course schedule affected by student gender? This results in two additional
null hypotheses:

H13: There is no association between success rates and course schedule for female students.

H14: There is no association between success rates and course schedule for male students.

Table 4a presents the percentage of successful/not successful students of each gender in each course
schedule.

Table 4a: Student Gender, Success and Course Schedule

Gender Course Schedule
1 Day/Week 2 Days/Week 3/Days/Week Summer
Female Not Successful 24.1% 18.9% 28.0% 21.4%
Successful 75.9% 81.1% 72.0% 78.6%

Male Not Successful 22.4% 22.6% 32.1% 17.2%

Successful 77.6% 77.4% 67.9% 82.8%

Results of chi-square tests on Table 4a are presented in Table 4b.

Chi-Square Tests of Table 4b

Gender Pearson Chi-Square Value df Significance level (p-value)
Female 5.360(b) 3 .147

Male 8.322(c) 3 .040

Once again, the results are quite interesting. The chi-square statistic is not significant for the female sub-
group indicating that there is no association between success and course schedule for females. Thus, we cannot
reject H13. However, the chi-square is significant for the male sub-group, indicating that there is an association
between course schedule and success for male students. Therefore, we must reject H14.

SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This research was grounded in spacing effect theory and was designed to investigate the existence of a
spacing effect for Intermediate Accounting. To do so, student performance in Intermediate Accounting offered
under each of four different schedules was examined. While an association between student performance and course
schedule was found, the results are not consistent with spacing effect theory. Results suggest that students in
compressed (summer) or intensive (one day per week) schedules perform no differently than do students in a two
days per week schedule, which is consistent with the conclusions of Daniel (2000) and Scott & Conrad (1991). Of
particular interest was the finding that students in the three days per week schedule were significantly less successful
in Intermediate Accounting than students in any other schedule. However, for the other three schedules, course
schedule did not seem to be associated with student performance. This suggests, contrary to the spacing effect, that
the three days per week schedule is not a good way for students to take Intermediate Accounting.

What are the possible explanations for this finding? One possibility is that the length of each class session
in the three days per week schedule may be too short for Intermediate Accounting. Because the class meets three
times per week, each meeting is only 50 minutes long. This may actually represent only about 40-45 minutes of
quality instruction time. Perhaps, for Intermediate Accounting and its more complex topics, students need longer
time per session to absorb the material or perhaps the teachers need longer time to adequately teach and illustrate the
58
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

concepts without interruption. Dividing these topics into shortened segments may actually be a very inefficient way
of learning and/or teaching this subject. Testing over intermediate accounting topics in a 50 minute period may also
be problematic. As the topics get more complex and require more analysis and critical thinking, it may be more
difficult for students to perform well in such a short time period. These issues may not exist for some courses, such
as principles of accounting, where the concepts are simpler (see prior research) but may be very significant for more
advanced and complex topics, such as are found in Intermediate Accounting.

Another possibility is that since there is less time between class meetings, students may be less likely to get
homework completed and practice new skills before the next class session, which would make it more difficult to
master the course material. Alternatively, perhaps the three days per week schedule results in a greater amount of
student absenteeism. This could be due to two reasons. First, by offering the material in smaller bites, students may
perceive each class as less important and tend to skip class more often. Secondly, the more often a class meets, the
chance of missing class due to illness, emergency, etc. are increased. Finally, it is possible that weaker or less
motivated students may be self-selecting into the three days per week schedule, although it is unclear as to why this
would take place.

Additional findings of this research centered on the effect of student characteristics. Interestingly, this
research found that course schedules were associated with student success for males, but not for females. In
addition, this association was also found to exist for traditional college age students, but not for older, nontraditional
college age students.

Why should student age or gender affect the association between course schedule and success in
Intermediate Accounting? Both factors may be related to the overall maturity of the student. Age is clearly directly
related to maturity and it has long been believed that males mature later in life than do females. Thus, it may be that
both of these variables are acting as a proxy for student maturity. The immature student is more likely to have
difficulty dealing with the inefficiencies and interruptions in instruction that occur in a 50 minute class, is more
likely to miss class, and is less likely to get homework completed before the next class.

In summary, the three days per week schedule appears least likely to lead to student success in Intermediate
Accounting at this university, particularly for the young, male student. The issue of whether these results hold for
other universities is a question for future research. In addition, future research should address whether this result
will hold for other upper level accounting courses or for upper level college courses in general. These results should
be of interest to university administrators responsible for making scheduling decisions, to faculty members teaching
under different course schedules, and to individual students planning their class schedules.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Linda G. Carrington is an Associate Professor of Accounting at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville,
Texas. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, an MBA from the University of Kentucky, and a
BBA in Accounting from Eastern Kentucky University. Dr. Carrington is a Certified Public Accountant, licensed in
Kentucky.

REFERENCES

1. Brett, M. (1996). Teaching Extended Class Periods. Social Education, 6092), 77-79.
2. Brookes, M.C.T. (1985). Time in Learning: Does Distribution Make a Difference? Community/Junior
College Quarterly, 9, 291-296.
3. Caskey, S.R. (1994). Learning Outcomes in Intensive Courses. Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
42, 23-27.
4. Daniel, E.L. (2000). A Review of Time-Shortened Courses across Disciplines. College Student Journal,
34, 298-306.
5. Dempster, F.N. (1988). The Spacing Effect: A Case of History in the Failure to Apply the Results of
Psychological Research. American Psychologist, 43, 627-634.

59
American Journal of Business Education April 2010 Volume 3, Number 4

6. Donovan, J.J., & Radosevich, D.J. (1999). A Meta-analytic Review of the Distribution of Practice Effect:
Now you see it, now you dont. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795-805.
7. Doyle, R.J. & Yantis, J. (1977). Facilitating Nontraditional Learning: An Update on Research on
Evaluation in Intensive Scheduling. Mount Pleasant, MI: Institute for Personal and Career Development.
8. Foma, E. (1983). Word Processing Text Editing: Massed versus Spaced Practice. Journal of Studies in
Technical Careers, 5, 19-26.
9. Gallo, M.A. & Odu, M. (2009). Examining the Relationship between Class Scheduling and Student
Achievement in College Algebra. Community College Review, 36 (4), 299-325.
10. Gay, L.R. (1973). Temporal Position of Reviews and its Effect on the Retention of Mathematical Rules.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 171-182.
11. Henebry, K. (1997). The Impact of Class Schedule on Student Performance in a Financial Management
Course. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 114-120.
12. Kanun, C., Ziebarth, E.W. & Abrahams, N. (1963). Comparison of Student Achievement in the Summer
Term and Regular Quarter. Journal of Experimental Education, 32, 123-132.
13. Kirby-Smith, J.P. (1987). Effects of Intensive College Courses on Student Cognitive Achievement,
Academic Standards, Student Attitudes, and Faculty Attitudes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California.
14. Krug, D., Davis, T.B., & Glover, J. A. (1990). Massed Versus Distributed Repeated Reading: A Case of
Forgetting Helping Recall? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 366-371.
15. Logan, R. & Geltner, P. (2000). The Influence of Session Length on Student Success. (Research Report
2000.4.1.0). Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica College, Office of Institutional Research. Retrieved from
http://www.smc.edu/research/T20000410.htm.
16. Petrowsky, M.C. (1996). The Two Week Summer Macroeconomics Course: Success of Failure?
Glendale, AZ: Glendale Community College. ERIC No. ED396779.
17. Pyle, W.H. (1913). Economical Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 148-158.
18. Reynolds, J. H., & Glaser, R. (1964). Effects of Repetition and Spaced Review upon Retention of a
Complex Learning Task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 297-308.
19. Scott, P.A. (1996). Attributes of High-Quality Intensive Course. College Student Journal, 30, 69-77.
20. Scott, P.A. & Conrad, C.F. (1991). A Critique of Intensive Courses and an Agenda for Research.
Madison, WI: Division of Summer Sessions and Inter-college Programs, University of Wisconsin. ERIC
No. ED337097.
21. Seamon, M. (2004). Short- and Long-Term Differences in Instructional Effectiveness between Intensive
and Semester-Length Courses. Teachers College Record, 106, 852-874.
22. Smith, S.M., & Rothkopf, E.Z. (1984). Contextual Enrichment and Distribution of Practice in the
Classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 341-358.
23. Studdard, A.L., Jr. (1975) A Study Comparing a Regular Semester and an Interim Term College Level
Physical Science Course Based on changes in Student Attitudes and Understanding of Science Processes.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 7979.
24. Wallace, J.A. (1972). Three Weeks Equals Thirty Weeks? A Report on the Experimental Intensive
January Language Course. Foreign Language Annals, 6, 88-94.
25. Van Scyoc, L.J. & Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or Intensive Course Lengths? A Comparison of
Outcomes in Economics Learning. Journal of Economic Education, 24, 15-22.

60